Prospects (2008) 38:7797

DOI 10.1007/s11125-008-9061-2
OPEN FILE

Towards inclusive education: the case of Finland

Irmeli Halinen Ritva Jarvinen

Published online: 23 September 2008

UNESCO IBE 2008

Abstract The article examines the Finnish system of basic education and the means it
employs to support good learning and healthy growth and development for all students.
The excellent learning outcomes of the Finnish comprehensive school indicate that it is
possible to develop a system with both quality teaching and learning, and equity and
equality for students. Throughout the article, special needs education is seen as an
important, but not dominant, aspect of Finlands inclusive policies. The article concludes
with five theses central to a working model of inclusive education.
Keywords

Inclusive education
Comprehensive school
School culture

Connecting equality with high-quality learning

In this article we examine how Finnish education supports good learning, coupled with
healthy growth and development for all students. We focus on basic education (comprehensive school)which, in the Finnish education system, includes primary and lower
secondary educationand look at the main features of early childhood education and
preschool from an inclusive perspective. By inclusion we mean not only equal educational
opportunities for all but also the strategies, structures and operating procedures that
guarantee successful learning for all students. We see special needs education as an
important, but not dominant, part of the nations policies for inclusion.
In three consecutive PISA assessmentsin 2000, 2003 and 2006Finnish comprehensive school students enjoyed excellent results. They have scored above students from
other participating countries on reading, mathematics, science, and problem-solving
skills. Arinen and Karjalainen (2007) describe the exceptional features of the Finnish

I. Halinen (&)
R. Jarvinen

Opetushallitus/National Board of Education, PO Box 380, 00531 Helsinki, Finland
e-mail: Irmeli.Halinen@oph.fi
R. Jarvinen
e-mail: ritva.jarvinen@oph.fi

123

I. Halinen, R. Jarvinen

78

success story: Finnish schools achieve very equitable outcomes, and their work is efficient,
with moderate amounts of time spent on learning and very reasonable educational
expenditures.
In the 2006 assessment of scientific literacy, the performance of Finnish youth was the
best in the world, and no OECD country had smaller variations in the performance of its
youth. In addition, more students had excellent records, and fewer were academically weak
than in any other country. In Finland, 20.9% of students reached either level 6(top) or
5(excellent); the OECD average was 9%. Only in Finland was the number of very poorly
performing students (under level 1) under 1% (0.5%); the OECD average was 5.2%. The
differences between schools were also minimal compared to other participating countries.
Even those Finnish schools that performed least well attained relatively high scores, as they
had in previous assessments. In 2000, for instance, the Finnish schools scoring lowest (10th
percentile) on reading scored almost 100 points above the overall OECD average. In the
OECD, differences between schools accounted for an average of 36% of the variation in
students reading performances, compared to only 5% in Finland. Moreover, family
background had less influence in Finland than elsewhere in the OECD (Valijarvi 2003;
Halinen 2006a). Thus, in Finland, an individual students school is not a decisive factor, as
all schools place a priority on high-quality education. The Finnish comprehensive school,
which does not stream students, seems to succeed in achieving both high quality and
equality at the same time, which in turn promotes social cohesion (Arinen and Karjalainen
2007, Valijarvi et al. 2002; Valijarvi 2003).
In addition to getting good results and reducing differences in achievement, the Finns
use both human and economic resources effectively. All children attend school and the
gender parity is good. In the Finnish basic education system, few students (only 2%) repeat
grades. The average is 16% in the OECD, with a percentage of over 30% in countries such
as France (42%), Luxembourg (40%), Portugal (34%), Spain (32%) and Netherlands (31%)
(Kupari and Valijarvi 2005). Also, in Finland, only 0.3% of students drop out of basic
education, far below the percentage elsewhere, especially in developing countries (UNESCO 2008). On finishing basic education, 96% of the students continue immediately to
upper secondary education.
The duration of the academic year (190 days) and the school day (47 hours, depending
on student age) are quite reasonable. The amount of homework assigned in comprehensive
schools is not particularly great, nor are students tutored privately to improve their grades.
For instance, the average Finnish student spends 4.4 hours on mathematics per week,
including instruction at school, homework, and other study (remedial or enrichment
classes); the OECD average is nearly 7 hours and the Korean is over 10. Expenditures on
education are at the OECD average, approximately 6% of GDP (Halinen 2006a).
How did Finland develop a system that allows all students to be successful learners? A
possible explanation lies in the Finns strong appreciation for education. Finland has
worked with determination to create educational structures that prevent exclusion, while
developing activities and pedagogies that facilitate inclusion. Arinen and Karjalainen
(2007, p. 69) explain:
Even the weakest Finnish learners are top students when compared against other
countries. Thus the good results in Finnish schools are based on the success of all
students. The results have not been attained by teaching special needs learners and
those learning at a slower pace in separate schools, but by bringing them into regular
classes and schools, into comprehensive education. The underlying feature is the
equitable comprehensive school that benefits all students alike.

123

Towards inclusive education

79

What is inclusion?
Traditionally, when educators discuss inclusion they emphasize that some students
especially those with learning disabilities and other disadvantages, who are often marginalized or even excluded from the education systemdo have the right to learn. The
concept of inclusion is undergoing change, however, and the focus is now increasingly on
the question of how to support every child to learn successfully. UNESCOs Salamanca
Statement (1994) set high expectations regarding inclusion for all 92 countries that had
signed the statement, including Finland. The influence of this statement can be seen, for
instance, in the Finnish Basic Education Act (1998) and in the National Core Curriculum
for Basic Education (2004). These documents start with the idea that every child has a right
to study in the nearest mainstream school, and also to receive individual support; they
emphasize cooperation among members of multiple professions and the need to develop
the entire school community and the learning environment, rather than focus only on the
problems of an individual student. They stress the importance of considering every learners individual strengths and developmental and educational needs. The movement
Education for All (EFA) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(2006) have also influenced national policies and several recent development programmes
in Finland.
As of 2008, all students in a Finnish age cohort, even those with the most severe
developmental impairments, receive similar basic education. It is now stressed that preschool and basic education involves everyone; inclusion means improving the situation for
children who once had no opportunities to attend school with other children, as well as
removing all possible obstacles to successful learning and development for every student
(Kokkala and Savolainen 2002). This requires a wide array of measures of support, as over
99.7% of students complete the 9 years of comprehensive school.
Finland has come to this point through a long and multifaceted process, with continuous
discussions about the importance of childhood, the value of individuals with disabilities,
and the educability of every child. People can sometimes forget that a child with special
needs is first and foremost a child, and only after that a child with special needs (Viittala
2005). Yet today we can see a fairly solid consensus in Finnish society about the goals of
education and the importance of inclusion. It is widely accepted that the educational
system must find the means to guarantee everyone a good education in an optimal learning
environment and with adequate support. This inclusive policy resists exclusion, focusing
on all students successful learning and wellbeing.
However, heated debates have taken place in Finland around the terminology and the
means of implementing inclusive education. In Finland, as in many other countries, the
word inclusion has sometimes been connected only with the question of how to organize
special needs education. It may have carried the connotation of full inclusion and suggested that there should be no special needs education groups, classes or schools. The
concept and practice of integrative education may be more acceptable among teachers and
parents because it involves a variety of teaching arrangements. In Finland, research and
development have focused especially on inclusive arrangements and instruction, with an
emphasis on cooperative learning, student and teacher participation, and school community. Advocates of inclusive education stress the aim of having all learners attend school
together; instruction should respond to their individual requirements, and all should feel
accepted and appreciated in the school community (Vayrynen 2001; Naukkarinen 2005).
Problems in defining special needs and organizing special needs education have been
connected with the medicalization of the process; problems have often been regarded as

123

80

I. Halinen, R. Jarvinen

those of an individual student. They have not been seen as challenges for the learning
environment or school community, nor as questions of the interaction between an individual student and the school surroundings. From this perspective, special needs pedagogy
may even have strengthened the segregation processes in education (Kivirauma 1998;
Naukkarinen 1998; Hakkarainen 2002). Interestingly enough, new research indicates that
some support measures in Finland, especially a part-time special needs provision, have
reduced the stigma associated with special needs education and instead promoted inclusion. In fact, such provision seems to have contributed to Finnish students excellent scores
on PISA (Grubb 2007; Moberg and Savolainen 2008; OECD 2005). This support is provided in regular classroom settings and offered to all who need it, such as those with
difficulties in speech, reading and writing, and mathematics, but even including the most
talented pupils. About 22% of Finnish comprehensive school students receive such support
(Koivula 2008). Recently, more emphasis has been placed on the learning environment and
on interaction processes in schools. For true inclusion to occur, the school community must
develop practices respecting all students and encouraging their participation (Vehmas
2001).
In general, national policies and regulations support inclusion; at the same time, given
Finlands strong tradition of municipal autonomy, the implementation of education policies
ranges from very inclusive to more segregated (Ketovuori 2007). Because teachers attitudes and skills are regarded as crucial in implementing inclusive policies, high-quality
teacher education is crucial for developing education (Moberg 2001; Pinola 2008).
Those who hold strong opinions about full inclusion are also critical of national and
local policies for special needs education (Saloviita 2006a; Pekkala 2006). They see
Finland as having moved far too slowly towards inclusion, and say the present system of
special needs educationwhich also allows study in separate settingsshould be abolished. These critics claim, among other points, that teachers are not willing to teach all
students in their classes. On the other hand, many researchers, administrators and teachers
appreciate the flexibility of the present system: teachers can use their professional expertise
to plan individual support. To them, inclusion means guaranteeing the right to meaningful
learning, with the focus on the learners individual needs; thus teachers should arrange a
good learning environment and adequate support for these needs, no matter what the type
of class or school. They also emphasize the municipalitys role in providing the resources
and means for inclusive instruction (Koivula 2008; Ketovuori 2007; Jahnukainen 2006).
Common to all these different opinions is the understanding that it is impossible to unify
mainstream and special-needs education mechanically; instead we must reform the overall
structures, the pedagogy and the working procedures in basic education (Saloviita et al.
2001). Teaching and learning should be regarded, and organized, as a meaningful continuum that responds to various student needs. It is also commonly accepted that the goal
of the inclusive education system is to guarantee free access to education, to implement
individual support so everyone can learn well, and to promote social integration (Moberg
2001). Thus, in Finland, as in any other country, inclusion is an ongoing process of
removing obstacles, to attend and to learn, both at school and in society (MOE 2007).

Steps toward inclusion

UNESCO (2008) emphasizes that inclusion is a process; it responds to the various needs of
all learners by increasing participation in education, training, culture and community,
while also preventing segregation and alienation in schools and in the larger society.

123

Towards inclusive education

81

Defined this way, inclusion requires changes in educational structures, policies, objectives,
subject matter, and operating procedures, so that all children can attend regular schools,
because all children have equal rights to learn. In implementing these rights, nations seem
to pass through various stages. Based on Coxs (2007) concepts, we can differentiate three
major stages or steps in developing equitable educational opportunities. These stages are:
(1) access to education; (2) access to quality education; and (3) access to success in
learning.
The first step in moving towards equality is to guarantee everyone access to education;
this generally means the obligation to attend school and complete at least basic studies.
Here the most essential effort is material: create a sufficiently broad school network so all
children can attend. Equally importantly, basic education should be free, making it
economically possible for everyone to attend. At this stage the emphasis should be on
effective support programmes to prevent children from repeating grades and dropping
out.
During the second stage the emphasis is on improving the quality of instruction and
extending the time spent in school, so learners can prepare for further studies and for adult
life. This requires improvements in curriculum, teacher training, and learning materials.
Only when these basic structures are in place and an education system can consider
students individual needs, does the third stage become possible. Now the emphasis is on
removing learning obstacles and adequately supporting all students to facilitate their
learning, healthy growth, and development. Now the challenge is to develop versatile
learning environments, cooperation among various professionals, supportive working
procedures in schools, and the praxis of inclusive, collaborative pedagogies.
These three developmental stages of inclusion interlace in many ways, but each must be
implemented before moving to the next. The inclusive pedagogies described for the third
stage will never occur unless a society has provided equal access to school, developed good
curricula and learning environments, and has teachers who can teach heterogeneous
groups.
Bearing these definitions of inclusion and the stages of development in mind, we now
examine the Finnish educational domain as an entity. In discussing inclusion we do not
focus narrowly on providing education for learners with disabilities. In fact, from the
perspective of inclusion we strive to promote solutions and functional models that are
important in education, more generally. What elements are essential, so all children can
have access to school, can complete school, and can succeed in their learning and develop
as individuals and as members of the community? From the perspective of educational
equality we argue that to implement true inclusion we must first delineate educational
policies and structures, and consider curriculum, teacher training, and the practical
implementation of instruction, with all the other practices those entail, particularly support
for student learning, wellbeing, and evaluation. Table 1 outlines this process.
Development of Finnish basic education and steps towards inclusion
As we review the development of Finnish basic education, en route to inclusion, the three
stages become even more clear. In Finland, the first stageaccess to educationreceived
a boost in 1921, when a law was passed requiring general compulsory education. In the
1960s and 1970s, the second stageaccess to quality educationgave rise to the current
educational system. In the 1990s, the third stageaccess to success in learningwas
launched through legislative changes. In Finland today, the challenge is to strengthen all
students rights to good learning and individual support, and to develop working

123

I. Halinen, R. Jarvinen

82
Table 1 Important elements in making progress towards inclusion
1. Educational policy
Development Lines and
strategies of
of
Education educational
policy

2. Provision of
education
Values

3. Curriculum

4. Instructional practices

Principles
Schools operating culture

Authority

Coverage
Structure

Structure of Management Administrative

leadership
education
system

Goals
Contents

Concept of learning
Learning processes
Student participation

LEARNING AND GROWTH

7. Teacher education
Initial teacher education
(pre-service)

Continuing education
(in-service)

6. Special support
Special needs education
Additional services

Interpreters and other support services

Working methods
Learning
environment
Differentiation
Student assessment
and feedback

5. General support of studies

Early intervention
and support

Remedial teaching
Student guidance
and counselling

Student welfare
services

Home-school
cooperation

procedures and pedagogies that ensure meaningful learning, good academic results and
healthy growth. Finland is now moving toward a fourth stage, which might be characterized as the era of life-long and life-wide learning.
The first stage, during which the Finns created the opportunity and finally the obligation
to attend school, lasted for centuries. In Finland the roots of universal education go back to
the 16th century, when the church taught people to read the Bible in their own language,
creating an early basis for Finnish literature and popular literacy. The first elements of the
present welfare society date back to the late 19th century. The national awakening and the
struggles to gain independence from the Russian regime, along with democracy and economic security, were all interwoven. Each of these phenomena revealed the need to broaden
education. After an 1866 decree, education organized by civil society began to separate itself
from church-based activities, creating a basis for systematic education in municipal schools.
During that era the teacher education system was created, along with a national school
administration to monitor and manage schools (Sarjala 2001; Lindstrom 2001).
During the first stage, special needs education leaned toward instruction for children
with sensory impairments. Early schools for the deaf were established in the 1840s, for the
blind in the 1860s and for the physically disabled in the 1890s. In 1866, basic education
was made the responsibility of the municipalities; it was later made compulsory, but
excluded most children with disabilities. Private individuals and charitable organizations
provided most of the education for these children (Tuunainen and Ihatsu 1996).
As the elementary school system developed, it paved the way for Finlands current high
educational standards and technological knowhow, as well as for the welfare system. An
1898 decree established the number of schools for each municipality and set five
kilometers as any childs maximum distance to school, except in sparsely populated areas.
This guaranteed children a real opportunity to attend school. Finland gained independence

123

Towards inclusive education

83

in 1917; in 1921-rather late by international standards-the Education Act establishing

compulsory education was finally implemented. Now every Finnish citizen was to attend
schoolfree of chargefor a minimum of 6 years starting at age seven. By the time
World War II began, the entire age cohort was educated, with the exception of developmentally retarded children, who were still exempted from compulsory education
(Tuunainen and Ihatsu 1996; Sarjala 2001; Lindstrom 2001).
The second stage was launched in the mid-1900s. With elementary education firmly
established it became clear that children needed more years of basic education and better
instruction. But while the entire age cohort now attended school, learners were quickly
divided into two streams: some children went through elementary education with a practical orientation, moving straight into working life, while others transferred after 4 years of
elementary education to an 8-year school with a theoretical, more academic emphasis. This
latter school was also divided into two parts: middle school and gymnasium. Middle school
opened the door to vocational school or to working life. Only after completing gymnasium
could learners take the National Matriculation Examination and apply to attend university.
In the 1960s, more and more parents wanted their children to attend at least middle school
as the elementary school system no longer seemed to meet everyones educational needs.
Nevertheless, this more academic (middle school and gymnasium) education was not
geographically or financially accessible to alland its pedagogies failed to consider the
growing diversity among students. Many therefore repeated grades and dropped out
increasing the pressure for school reform (Rinne 2001; Halinen and Pietila 2005; Halinen
2007).
In 1968, after heated nationwide discussion, an Education Act created a 9-year comprehensive school system. Driving this reform was the idea that in an increasingly complex
world, a nation needs both theoretical and practical knowledge (Uusikyla 2005). Comprehensive school was now divided into 6 years of primary school and 3 years of
secondary. A detailed national curriculum for comprehensive schools was planned to
provide guidance for municipalities and schools. It included a far-reaching pedagogical
vision, by considering the individual development of each learners unique characteristics (Committee on the Comprehensive School Curriculum 1970, p. 23).
While the comprehensive school was intended for everyone, many elements of segregation survived. Until 1985, the students in grades 7 through 9 were divided into streamed
courses in mathematics and foreign languages. There were three study levels in these
subjects, and those students who chose the lowest level were not allowed to continue their
studies in the gymnasium. A great deal of potential was lost as boys, often slower to
develop, opted for the lowest streams. Special needs learners mostly studied in their own
groups or schools. Children with severe developmental impairments were not yet included
in basic education. The approach to special needs education still medicalized all learningrelated difficulties. The prevailing view held that expertise in assessing learning disabilities
was found among specialists, especially medical doctors and psychologists: people outside
the schools rather than within them (Tuunainen and Ihatsu 1996; Halinen and Pietila 2005).
In the mid-1980s, the laws on basic education and the curriculum were revised. The first
national core curriculum was created and municipalities were obligated to draw up their
own local curricula. The streamed courses were abandoned; at last, all students received
similar preparation for further studies. In a major step toward inclusion, the 1983 Act on
basic education stated that no child was to be exempted from compulsory education. The
1985 National Core Curriculum stressed the importance of differentiation in teaching and,
when needed, personal learning programmes in accordance with childrens ages and ability
to learn. Special needs education moved towards both integration and normalization, by

123

84

I. Halinen, R. Jarvinen

promoting the idea that all children with disabilities should study like other children.
Municipalities were now given more responsibility to plan instruction in response to the
needs of all children, and several national projects were implemented to improve teaching
quality (Tuunainen and Ihatsu 1996; Halinen and Pietila 2005; Halinen 2006a, 2007).
The third stage, striving for a universal focus on learner needs and quality instruction in
all schools, started in the 1980s and gained a full head of steam in the 1990s. In 1994 the
National Core Curriculum for basic education was renewed. A new cooperative system was
created to set out and implement the reforms objectives. In 1995 the nation assessed its
special needs education. Elements of the previous, more segregated, models of operation
were still visible in the practices used by municipalities and schools alike, as well as in
teacher knowledge and attitudes. Special needs classrooms were still common, but now were
generally located in or near the regular schools; whenever possible, the students were
integrated with regular groups. Many teachers, however, felt their skills were inadequate to
teach special needs students; sometimes they were also unwilling to do so. Over the next few
years the measures of development were based on the conclusions from this assessment. The
goals were set so that the system of educational management would support the integration
of municipal service systems and the operating culture of schools could move in the direction
of inclusion (Tuunainen and Ihatsu 1996; Halinen and Pietila 2005; Kartovaara 2007).
In 1998 the Act and Decree on basic education were once again renewed. In 2001 the
common goals of basic education were defined in more detail, and lesson hours were
reallocated. These changes brought all students, even those with the greatest developmental
impairments, into the same sphere of basic education. The new regulations emphasized that
schools and municipalities were required to support all learners instruction and welfare. In
basic education the division into primary and secondary grades was removed. In 2000 the
first National Core Curriculum for Preschool Education was drawn up, followed in 2004 by
one for basic education, with 9 years of unified compulsory, comprehensive basic education
for all children (Halinen and Pietila 2005; Halinen 2006a). On the general level, these new
core curricula still represent the values upon which inclusive education rests (Saloviita
2006b). Yet the number of special needs students was growing, leading to active debates
about the inclusiveness of the education system. Since 2004 Finland has seen extensive
national development programmes and remarkable investments in school welfare, student
guidance and counselling, and special needs education.
Many challenges still remain. Early intervention is crucial, along with high-quality early
childhood education and care, and preschool education. Among the greatest challenges
within basic education are reducing the amount of special needs education provided in
separate settings and strengthening and improving the quality of multi-professional support
in regular, mainstream settings. Resources are also needed for mainstream education and
for teacher development to help them respond to student needs within the framework of
heterogeneous teaching groups. Upper secondary education offers even greater challenges
from the viewpoint of inclusion. In the following sections we discuss the school policies,
structures and procedures that can develop Finnish basic education so it can become even
more inclusive.

A flexible education system accessible to all

The key objective of Finnish educational policy today is to provide all citizens with equal
access to educationregardless of age, place of residence, economic circumstances, gender,
or mother tongue. The Basic Education Act guarantees everyone residing in Finland

123

Towards inclusive education

85

Fig. 1 The Finnish education system

citizen or notthe right to free preschool and basic education. The aim is to guarantee a rich
and supportive learning environment for everyone, starting from an early age (Fig. 1).
The Finnish education system includes three elements:
9 years of basic education (comprehensive school) preceded by a year of noncompulsory preschool;
post-comprehensive education with an option of vocational training or general upper
secondary education; and
tertiary education at polytechnics and universities.
From the learners perspective, the system is flexible: each student has the opportunity to
proceed all the way to university. Streaming and tracking do not exist in basic education,
and individuals are supported within the context of the comprehensive school available to
all. Within the various phases of their schooling learners can make some individual
choices, without throwing up obstacles to their next level of studies. There are no educational dead ends: one can always proceed to the next level. Adult education is also
multifaceted, offering lifelong opportunities to return to basic studies.
Tuition-based early childhood education and care are considered social services, not
part of the educational system. The government is considering making early learning an
integral part of the educational system.

123

86

I. Halinen, R. Jarvinen

The education system itself is based on publicly funded municipal schools. Private
schools are rare, accommodating only 2% of students. Preschool and basic education are
totally free of charge: children receive study materials, a daily warm meal, health and
dental care, other welfare and support services, and, if necessary, free transportation and
accommodation. Municipalities may also provide optional before- and after-school
activities for students in basic education. By securing all these services, Finnish society
ensures that everyone has a chance to participate fully in schooling. Students in upper
secondary schools receive free tuition and meals as well, but must buy their own textbooks
and other learning materials. Even at universities and polytechnics, instruction is entirely
free. Furthermore, government study grants are available to students in upper secondary
and tertiary education.
Early childhood education and care, preschool and basic education and usually also
upper secondary education are provided by municipalities, which have broad autonomy in
organizing education. The network of preschools and comprehensive schools covers the
entire country well. Finlands big challenge, also from the viewpoint of inclusion, is how to
maintain the extensive school network so all students can attend school close to home,
while upholding the high quality of teaching and learning in all schools throughout the
country.

The system of educational management: a culture of interaction and trust

The Finnish Parliament renders decisions on educational legislation and the general
principles of education policy. The government, the Ministry of Education, and the Finnish
National Board of Education are responsible for implementing this policy at the central
administration level. The municipalities are responsible for providing educationand are
granted great autonomy to do so.
Preschool and basic education are governed by the Basic Education Act (628/1998) and
Basic Education Decree (852/1998) and by the Government Decree on the General
National Objectives and Distribution of Lesson Hours in Basic Education (1435/2001).
These Acts set down the principles according to which education must be provided, and
such matters as the core subjects taught to all students, and the allocation of teaching hours
to subjects. The National Core Curriculum 2004 is the pedagogical basis for the work of
the municipalities and private education providers. They are responsible for designing the
local curriculum, which can be tailored either to involve the entire municipality or each
school, or a combination of the two. The national laws and the Core Curriculum, directing
municipal educational arrangements and instruction, serve as common guidelines for all
schools and build a solid foundation for all parties to plan their work. The entire system
aims to support the process of teaching and learning.
The educational administration is flexible and supportive. The national administration
interacts naturally and vigorously with municipalities and schools. Instead of control the
Finnish system emphasizes trust, support and development (Valijarvi 2003). Instead of
nationwide examinations or lists ranking schools it focuses on self-evaluation. Based on
national and municipal goals, the task is to find areas for improvement (Halinen et al.
2006). At the national level, educational authorities evaluate the success of educational
policy. At the municipal level, they evaluate their own activities and take responsibility for
continuing to develop education. The self-evaluation also aims to make activities transparent to parents and other interest groups, to facilitate a common, integrated understanding
of the systems aims, procedures and outcomes. This self-evaluation is supported by

123

Towards inclusive education

87

national, sample-based evaluations of student achievement and of students health and

welfare, and by thematic evaluations, one of which looks at special needs education.

The curriculum and inclusion

The National Board of Education (NBE) creates the core curricula, in cooperation with
broad networks of teacher education departments, publishers of learning materials,
researchers, municipal education authorities, principals and teachers, and representatives of
the social services and national healthcare systems. This cooperation helps ensure that
teachers are supported by other actors in society (Merimaa 2004; Halinen 2007).
The core curriculum (CC) defines the common guidelines for all municipalities and
schools to arrange their work. Covering the entire realm of school operations, it includes
education for all students, even those with the most severe impairments. The CC also requires
municipalities and schools to cooperate with parents and with municipal social and health
authorities, especially on matters of student development and welfare (Halinen 2006a, 2007).
As it represents the values upon which inclusive education rests, the CC defines a common
conception of learning, criteria for choosing teaching methods and developing the learning
environment and the schools working culture. Because it envisages the student as an active
learner, support for the individual learning process is essential, as are communal learning and
interaction. The CC emphasizes a friendly, supportive environment and an open, encouraging
operational culture based on interaction and participation (Halinen 2006b, 2007).
Each municipality draws up a municipal curriculum based on the CC, giving consideration to the needs of local children and families. Every school has its own curriculum, which
it uses to develop annual work plans for the school and for each teacher, and individual study
plans for students when needed (Halinen 2006a, 2007). Teachers and other school staff are
closely involved in planning the curriculum. As teachers discuss curricular issues they must
think through the influences on their teaching and on students learning: how will they
organize special needs education, support for those with learning difficulties, and student
guidance and counselling? How will they ensure students wellbeing? Schools also draw up
plans to ensure a safe learning environment, to monitor students absences and to protect
students from bullying, violence and harassment (Maensivu 2004; Halinen 2006a).
Through this process, teachers learn to view the operations of their school as a whole
and also commit to taking responsibility for more than their own class or subject. This
develops their overall expertise, creating a better basis for inclusive practices. Students and
their parents are also increasingly involved in school curriculum processes, and their needs
and opinions do influence school practices.

From early years to upper secondary: inclusive structures and school culture
Early childhood education and care, preschool education, and basic education form an
integrated entity, ensuring a consistent and flexible environment, where children can
develop their individual characteristics.
Most early childhood education and care services are provided in municipal day care
centres or in family daycare. Though tuition is charged for, some children receive day
care free of charge, depending on family size and income level. Parents of small children
have other societal supports, including 43 weeks of parental leave and allowance after the
childs birth. Once that leave ends, they can receive a child home care allowance, until the

123

I. Halinen, R. Jarvinen

88

youngest child turns three or enters municipal day care. This welfare policy is an important
factor in the success of inclusion.
According to the National Curriculum Framework for Early Childhood Education and
Care (2003), these services aim to promote childrens healthy growth, development and
learning. By emphasizing early intervention and support, they even out the differences
between children created by differences in living conditions, thus offering all children
equal opportunities to develop. Whenever possible, special support is provided in regular
day care settings, taking into consideration each childs possible learning or developmental
disabilities, different languages and cultural backgrounds, or other needs.
Before beginning compulsory school, as a part of either early childhood education or
basic education, each child may attend 1 year of preschool; more than 96% of all 6-yearolds do so. Free preschool education is provided by municipal, social, or educational
authorities, in accordance with the National Core Curriculum for Preschool Education
(NBE 2000). This can be offered in day care centres or schools. The national minimum for
preschool studies is 700 h per year: about four hours a day. Children also have a right to
day care after these hours, if needed.
The special goals for preschool, set out in a Decree (1435/2001), are to improve
childrens developmental and learning readiness as well as to strengthen their social skills
and healthy self-esteem through play and positive learning experiences. During this year,
children do not start systematic subject studies. Preschool smoothes the transition from day
care to basic education, as it supports and monitors childrens physical, psychological,
social, cognitive and emotional development and helps prevent difficulties from arising.
During the preschool year, early intervention helps detect problems in development and
learning. If children need help, the support is defined and organized in cooperation with
their parents and the social and health authorities. Again, the aim is to even out the
differences in learning conditions due to a childs social or cultural background, disability
or other difficulty.
In this continuum, basic education is the core opportunity for inclusion. All children
residing permanently in Finland are required to complete compulsory education, either by
attending a comprehensive school or through other means like studying at home. Compulsory education starts when a child turns seven and usually ends 9 years later, when she/
he has completed the basic education curriculum. Parents are responsible for ensuring that
their children complete basic education, and, indeed, over 99.5% do so. Basic education
gives everyone who completes it the same right to further education. Immediately after
basic education, approximately 52% of students enter general upper secondary studies and
40% enter vocational studies (Halinen 2006b).
The National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (NBE 2004, p. 12) emphasizes the
importance of basic education in reaching equality, and stresses the diversity of learners as
a starting point for providing basic education:
The basis of instruction is Finnish culture, which has developed in interaction with
indigenous, Nordic, and European cultures. In the instruction, special national and
local attributes, the national languages, the two national churches, the Sami as an
indigenous people and national minorities must be taken into consideration. The
instruction must also take into account the diversification of Finnish culture through
the arrival of people from other cultures. Instruction helps to support the formation of
students own cultural identities, and their part in Finnish society and a globalising
world. Instruction also helps to promote tolerance and intercultural understanding.

123

Towards inclusive education

89

Basic education helps to increase both regional equality and equality among individuals. Instruction must consider the diversity of learners, and gender equality is
promoted by giving girls and boys the ability to act on the basis of equal rights and
responsibilities in society, working life, and family life. Basic education must provide an opportunity for diversified growth, learning, and the development of a
healthy sense of self-esteem, so that students may gain the knowledge and skills they
need in life, prepare for further study, and, as involved citizens, develop a democratic
society. Basic education must also support all students linguistic and cultural
identities and the development of their mother tongues. A further objective is to
awaken a desire for lifelong learning.
In comprehensive schools, instruction is mainly subject-based, but also includes seven
cross-curricular themes. Legislation sets the national minimum number of weekly lessons,
varying from 19 in the 1st and 2nd grades to 30 in the 7th through 9th grades. The
objectives and core contents of subjects and themes are usually given as general
competences, emphasizing knowledge acquisition, communication and cooperation, active
participation, problem solving and learning to learn skills.
Student assessment is viewed as a valuable tool for both teachers and students. As
teachers offer feedback on students self-assessments, they are able to consider students
individual needs; they can help students identify challenges to their own development and
set goals for themselves. Teachers and students are not burdened with national testing.
Once every 5 years, each school is included in a national sample of learning outcomes in
one subject. Teachers receive information on their own schools results, but those results
are not published, and schools are not compared with each other (NBE 2004; Halinen
2006b).
During basic education students are not streamed in any way, and they usually study in
heterogeneous groups. The same goals are set for all students, but the Basic Education Act
and the core curriculum require schools to consider students individual needs and learning
styles using pedagogical means such as diverse teaching methods, and by adapting the
study contents to support all students learning processes. To make that possible, teachers
need to manage their study groups well and direct and support students individually. They
are also expected to identify all students strengths and needs so they can provide personal
study plans. In recent years great emphasis has been placed on creating diverse learning
environments and an encouraging and interactive atmosphere. Teachers have more flexibility to form study groups and to develop cooperation between them, increasing their
teamwork both in planning instruction and in teaching situations (Halinen 2006b).
Early intervention in basic education means that teachers can tackle problems in
learning and development as soon as they detect them. Thus students rarely repeat grades,
beyond the roughly 2% who repeat either first or second grade, and the dropout rate is
below 0.5%. Any student who needs support is entitled to it, and a wide array of support
measures, used systematically, help everyone complete basic education.
If a child seems unable to complete compulsory education within the standard 9 years,
for such reasons as disability or illness, they can begin it a year earlier than other students,
taking 2 years of pre-primary education. Or they can begin this extended compulsory
education at age five (NBE 2004).
Students with the most severe disabilities do not learn specific subjects; instead, their
instruction is divided into functional domains, including motor skills, language and
communication, social skills, activities of daily living and cognitive skills. Their progress
is evaluated within these domains. Children with profound mental retardation study mostly

123

90

I. Halinen, R. Jarvinen

in their own groups, guided by teachers and personal aides. Increasingly, these classes are
connected with the general schools (NBE 2004).
After the 9 years, students may attend one more year of additional, non-compulsory,
basic education (VABE), designed to support those with problems in learning or development; about 4% do so. VABE teaching aims to be as flexible, personal, and positive as
possible; sometimes it can be combined with a job. During this year, students may improve
their earlier grades, learning skills, self-esteem and motivation; they may also acquire
knowledge they need for further studies, improving their options for upper-secondary
education. This additional year promotes inclusion, as the goal is for the entire age cohort
to transfer from basic education to upper secondary education (NBE 2004).
In addition to the regular school day, extra-curricular clubs and after-school activities
are available for first and second graders and children with special needs. The NBE
curriculum framework for these activities contains goals and core contents that municipalities use to decide what activities to arrange (NBE 2007). Children can engage in a wide
range of interesting activities, or do homework, or rest in a safe and peaceful environment
under the eyes of professional staff (Rajala 2007). These activities aim to help the family
with child-rearing, and to support childrens emotional and ethical development; they also
promote involvement and equality.

Structures for eradicating exclusion

In scrutinising the current Finnish educational system from the perspective of inclusion, we
must remember that this system has evolved over time (Naukkarinen 2005; Saloviita
2006a) and the efforts to develop full inclusion have proceeded with moderation.
The strength of the Finnish education system lies within the structures and functional
models, the primary function of which is to eradicate exclusionthat is, segregation and
alienationfrom education and from society. They form a strong basis for inclusion. Also
crucial are teachers attitudes and skills, so certain types of learners can receive optimal
attention. Municipal authorities and social services are important, too, in providing the
support students and their families need.
The starting point for education is always the nearest mainstream schoolwhich must
take all children from its catchment area. If students require more assistance with learning
and development, various measures are accessible. Comprehensive schools are implementing a range of such measures, both general and special.
The following general support measures apply to all students:

Teachers differentiate their instruction in response to student needs;

They cooperate closely with parents or guardians;
Guidance and counselling are available for all students;
All students can receive services to support their physical health and psychosocial
wellbeing;
Students temporarily lagging behind in their studies can receive remedial teaching.
Special support measures are designed for students with special needs:
Part-time special needs education is available for students with minor difficulties in
learning or adjustment;
Full-time special needs education is available for students with major learning
difficulties, disabilities, illness, retarded development, emotional disturbances, etc.;

123

Towards inclusive education

91

Interpreters are available, along with supplementary equipment, devices and materials
(NBE 2004; Koivula 2008).
In the area of general support, pedagogical differentiation allows teachers to meet the
diverse needs of students by arranging lesson topics, teaching methods, working techniques
and learning materials, student assessment and feedback, and flexible grouping, as well as
physical and psychological learning environments. All students are entitled to guidance
and counselling to develop their study skills, and to make good choices in their studies and
careers. Psychosocial and health support is provided by school psychologists, social
workers, and school nurses, to strengthen students learning capacity and empower them to
take responsibility for their own studies.
Students who need specific support can generally receive remedial teaching from their
own class teachers or subject teachers, either individually or in a small group immediately
after class. Students who have minor difficulties or mild disabilities in learning or
adjustment have the right to receive part-time special needs education from special needs
teachers, who may work together with class teachers or subject teachers during lessons, or
teach one or a few students individually during the school day. Such services are generally
granted for a certain period of time, perhaps a month or two, and can be extended if
necessary. Such part-time special education has proved to be very important in achieving
good learning results (Koivula 2008; Moberg and Savolainen 2008).
Should students need even more support, decisions can be made about special needs
education; based on these decisions, individual education plans (IEPs) will be designed and
implemented. These IEPs present students strengths and challenges, and define the individual objectives of learning and the criteria for evaluation; they also describe how to
develop the learning environment and offer instruction. Such students may be taught in
mainstream settings, either in their previous groups or in smaller study groups-which may
be flexible groups or more permanent special needs groups in the same schools. Students
who need considerably more support may be placed in a special needs school, but this
happens less often as special needs education is offered more frequently in mainstream
schools (Koivula 2008).
Every comprehensive school has its own student welfare group, consisting of teachers
and health care staff. Usually chaired by the headmaster, this group responds to concerns
expressed by teachers and discusses the optimal supportive measures for students learning
and developmentalways in cooperation with parents. This group also monitors the
impact of the measures chosen, and students development (Peltonen 2005).
Sometimes, however, students face such enormous difficulties, due to illness, disability
or social problems, that they cannot study successfully in regular local schools or special
needs schools, even with strong support. A dense educational safety network has been
developed in Finland to ensure that opportunities for learning are available to everyone.
These aims are served in hospital education, in reform schools, and in state-owned
special needs schools for students with severe disabilities.
When students involved in preschool, comprehensive school or VABE become patients
in hospital, they are entitled to instruction there, provided by the municipality responsible
for that hospital, regardless of the students place of residence. Instruction is based on the
core curriculum, and may be individual or small-group, tailored to meet the special
demands of their health situation. The right to instruction does not depend on the length of
hospitalization; they may receive support for schoolwork for just a few days or for years
(MOE 2004).

123

92

I. Halinen, R. Jarvinen

Since 2005 the government has earmarked additional resources for hospital education in
a national project aimed to develop this area of education. A total of 32 hospital school
units, operating in Finland, have participated this project. To support regular schools in
assisting children before they are hospitalized and again when they return to school, the
project is designing a functional model that allows children to learn in the most flexible
way possible and to feel secure, despite multiple transfers. A key assumption is that, when
students are severely ill, it is especially important to hold on to regular life and to the joy of
learning (Tilus 2007, 2008).
Reform schools are national boarding schools, where children live if their home life
and regular school attendance become impossible due to problems such as drug and
alcohol abuse, behavioural disorders, and child-parent crises. From the perspective of child
services and education, these placements are radical solutions, usually the last option when
no other supportive measures have helped. Finland has six government-owned reform
schools and two private ones; each houses about 20 students, averaging 15 years of age.
Students generally study in small groups in a clearly prescribed and secure environment.
Currently, Finland has seven state-owned special needs schools that serve students with
severely impaired vision, hearing and mobility, neurological disorders, dysphasia and
autism and other severe disabilities; they provide instruction as well as guidance, rehabilitation and supportive services to facilitate learning. The state schools have a special role
as support and counselling units for municipal administrators, regular schools and parents.
State schools arrange training, and construct and loan out suitable materials and equipment
to other schools; they also develop educational and rehabilitative techniques and are
actively developing guidance and service programmes to be offered via the internet.
Students from regular schools who have one of the above diagnoses may attend special
needs schools for a supportive period, during which all of the students educational
arrangements and support services are monitored. An educational plan is then drafted in
cooperation with the students regular school. Some students continue studying in these
state schools for a longer period, or even for their entire school career, especially those
with severe multiple disabilities who require many special venues, unusual support
equipment and materials, and/or especially knowledgeable teachers. The majority of students with disabilities, however, study in their local schools (NBE 2002).

The future
Every 4 years the Finnish government redefines the policy on educational development and
the MOE prepares a plan for education and research. The latest plan, designed for 2007
2011, emphasizes several changes in the operating environment that will have an impact on
schools. First, as the age cohort shrinks, a challenge arises: how can one secure equitable
accessibility to education while maintaining high quality education? Second, extra-curricular learning environments and communities are becoming increasingly versatile as media,
especially the internet, are gaining significant influence. Third, parents find their authority
undermined by their hectic and uncertain working lives, and by changed family structures.
Finally, due to societal changes, schools are changing too: apart from setting high expectations for learning, schools are increasingly expected to support students general
wellbeing, emotional development, and social, ethical, and aesthetic skills (MOE 2008).
Over the last few years the MOE has played an active role in developing strategies to
enhance student wellbeing and strengthen inclusive practices in preschool and basic
education. The MOE emphasizes that the everyday life of a school community includes

123

Towards inclusive education

93

factors that can strengthen or weaken childrens learning and welfare. At its best, school
promotes student interaction, involvement and participation, which in turn increase wellbeing. This requires clear goals and working procedures, versatile working methods, and
realistic and encouraging feedback for students (MOE 2005).
The new special education strategy (MOE 2007) emphasizes that all students, including
those with special needs, have the right to preschool and to attend regular comprehensive
schools close to their homes. It focuses on mainstream education and developing intensified preventive support. It also aims to remove the medicalization stigma from special
needs education, and to emphasize pedagogical assessment as the starting point of all
educational planning. As of early 2008, MOE has already allocated significant resources to
teacher education and to the development work of municipalities. Recent research also
clearly shows that Finnish comprehensive school teachers respect their students and are
very willing to use a variety of methods to meet their individual needs so they can learn
successfully (Atjonen et al. 2008).
Given the facts presented here, we feel confident that inclusive education is firmly
established in Finland. We are moving forward with other Nordic countries with which we
share a passion for democratic welfare society and equality in education. In the UNESCO/
IBE International Workshop on Inclusive Education, Nordic Countries, held in March 2008
in Helsinki, these common goals and future challenges were solidified in a Nordic
Roadmap towards inclusive education. Our strengths seem to be: coherence and flexibility
of the education system; good pedagogical leadership; strong student participation; welleducated teachers, who are reflective practitioners and form warm relationships with their
students; and a cooperative, multi-professional approach to inclusive education.
Our biggest challenges in Finland, as in other Nordic countries, revolve around learning
to live with growing diversity and multiculturalism in both society and schools. To respond
to this diversity we need to develop teachers abilities and instructional practices, including
heterogeneous study groups. We must improve early childhood education and make it a
more integral part of the education system. We also need to find even better forms of early
intervention, preventive and multi-professional support, and ways to reduce special needs
education in separate settingsand improve what cannot be changed. Finally, we should
find ways to transfer the inclusive ethos of basic education to post-basic education and
encourage everyone to become an active learner.
Currently, equality in Finnish education is being strengthened, as it enters the fourth
stage in the development of inclusion, where learning is seen as a life-long and life-wide
process. Early childhood education and care, together with preschool and basic education,
create a strong foundation for learning. Given Finlands small population, it needs its high
standard of education and knowhow. We cannot afford to let one single person drop off the
path of life-long learning. For individuals, education is always a channel to cultural
involvement, both locally and in our ever-globalizing world. Learning opens up a highway
to the common treasure house of humanity: to the acceptance and sharing of values and
competencies in interaction with others. We should be able to equip all our children to
enter into an uncertain future with good competences and with hope and anticipation
(Halinen and Jarvinen 2007).

Five theses on inclusion

Based on the Finnish experience with inclusive education, we propose five areas of
development for discussion on the path toward inclusion. We must decide on the values

123

94

I. Halinen, R. Jarvinen

and goals of education, on the next steps to take, on how to develop the spirit and operating
culture throughout the education system, on how to develop and support teachers, and on
the role and process of the curriculum.
First, the concept of inclusive education is based on the value choices a society makes.
The Finns underlying philosophy is that people have both rights and responsibilities in
developing as human beings and contributing members of society. Securing a similar basic
education for all requires making both mental and economic commitments to reaching that
goal.
Second, for inclusion to work, all children must attend school; thus decisions about the
distance to schools and about educational expenses must empower all families actually to
send their children to school. Once these conditions are met, we must continue to ensure
that all children complete at least basic education without dropping out. Only when
children stay at school can they be helped to succeed in their studies. If children repeat
grades, they represent an economic burden on society and may feel segregated. To keep the
repetition rate low we must continue to develop teaching arrangements and methods that
promote childrens learning and wellbeing, so everyone can reach the goals set for
learning.
Third, both locally and nationally, inclusion requires a joint will and a common operating culture, one that values participation by all members of society. This calls for
collaborative working models and inclusive pedagogical processes, which enable everyone
to contribute equitably. The starting point is found in students needs and their own goals
for their development; their realization also requires family backing. Each schools staff
must have the expertise to meet students needs for support and coordinate their students
individual goals to targets that are socially important. Moreover, the school culture must
make all learners feel respected and included in the community, and must respect everyones learning goals. When that happens, diversity is seen as a strength and resource. Every
school day should include caring and encouraging interaction, with teachers listening to
students, providing early intervention and support in the classroom.
Fourth, inclusion relies heavily on teachers positive approaches and high professional
skills. Every day teachers must meet students needs and help them perform well; to do so,
they need the support of the entire society. At both national and local levels, the authorities
in charge of familial social support, and of healthcare, youth and cultural services, should
support the work of teachers and schools. This process is interactive: as the educational
system and the schools develop an inclusive approach to teachers, they can better contribute to and influence the development of their schools and of education overall. Teachers
must be empowered to reach solutions based on both their expert estimation of students
needs and the local opportunities they see. Teachers must not be burdened with time- and
resource-consuming tests, evaluations or inspections. Instead, they need high quality preservice education and opportunities to continue their professional development through inservice training and networking with other teachers.
Finally, the curriculum must express the basic inclusive values of education and the
consensual will to develop education. It should support the local design and implementation of inclusive instruction. Working on their own schools curricula can enable teachers
to commit to common goals and inclusive operating procedures.
Processes for evaluating and assessing curricula should be open, supportive, and
interactive. These qualities should be implemented in the cooperative work between the
national and local administrators, between municipal authorities, principals and teachers,
and between teachers and students. When work is based on trust and confidence, with high

123

Towards inclusive education

95

expectations and supportive structures and procedures, people respond by trying to do their
best. That is the key to success in educationand certainly in inclusion.

References
Arinen, P., & Karjalainen, T. (2007). PISA 2006: Ensituloksia [PISA 2006: First results]. OECD, PISA;
Opetusministerio, Helsingin yliopisto, Koulutuksen arviointikeskus. Report of the Ministry of
Education, Finland, no. 38, 2007.
Atjonen, P., et al. (2008). Tavoitteista vuorovaikutukseen [From goals to interaction]. Perusopetuksen
pedagogiikan arviointi. Koulutuksen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 30. Report of the Finnish Education
Evaluation Council, no. 30, 2008.
Committee on the Comprehensive School Curriculum. (1970). Committee Deliberations I. Opetussuunnitelman perusteet. Komiteanmietinto 1970: A5. Helsinki: Kouluhallitus.
Cox, C. (2007). Inclusive education and inclusive society. What can we do and promote from the educational systems? Presentation at the International Workshop on Inclusive Education, Latin America,
Andean and Southern Cone, 1214 September, 2007, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Grubb, W. N. (2007). Dynamic inequality and intervention: Lessons from a small country. Phi Delta
Kappan, 89(2), 105114.
Hakkarainen, P. (2002). Varhaiskasvatus ja tieteellinen tutkimus [Early childhood education and scientific
research]. Kasvatus, 33(2), 133147.
Halinen, I. (2006a). The Finnish curriculum development process. In A. Crisan (Ed.), Current and future
challenges in curriculum development: Policies, practices and networking for change (pp. 6278).
Center Education 2000? and UNESCO/IBE Bucharest: Humanitas Educational.
Halinen, I. (2006b). Lecole de lequite et de lintegration: Le cas de la Finlande [The equal and inclusive
school: The Finnish case]. Revue internationale deducation, 41.
Halinen, I. (2007). Der Lehrplan der Gemeinschaftsschule und die Weiterentwicklung der Schulausbildung
in Finnland [Comprehensive school curriculum and educational development in Finland]. In J. Sarjala
& E. Hakli (Eds.), Jenseits von PISA: Finnlands Schulsystem und seine neuesten Entwicklungen.
Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Halinen, I., & Jarvinen, R. (Eds.). (2007). Futures education. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of
Education.
Halinen, I., Kauppinen, J., & Yrjola, P. (2006). Que savent les ele`ves en Finlande? [What do students in
Finland know?]. Revue internationale deducation, 43.
Halinen, I., & Pietila, A. (2005). Yhtenaisen perusopetuksen kehityksesta [The development of the comprehensive school]. In K. Hamalainen, A. Lindstrom, & J. Puhakka (Eds.), Yhtenaisen peruskoulun
menestystarina (pp. 95107). Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.
Jahnukainen, M. (2006). Erityisopetuksen ja inkluusion tilan tulkinnasta kommentteja Saloviidalle [Comments on Professor Saloviitas interpretation of the state of special needs education and inclusion].
Kasvatus, 5, 505507.
Kartovaara, E. (Ed.). (2007). Perusopetuksen vuoden 2004 opetussuunnitelmauudistus [Reform of the 2004
curriculum for basic education]. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Ketovuori, H. 2007. Inkluusion haasteet perusopetuksessa [Challenges of inclusion in basic education].
Kasvatus, 1, 6365.
Kivirauma, J. (1998). Normaali erityisopetuksen piilo-opetussuunnitelmana [Normal as the hidden curriculum in special needs education]. In T. Ladonlahti, A. Naukkarinen, & S. Vehmas (Eds.), Poikkeava
vai erityinen? Erityispedagogiikan monet ulottuvuudet [Deviant or special? Extents of special needs
education] (pp. 203215). Jyvaskyla: AtenaKustannus.
Koivula, P. (2008). Inclusive education in Finland. Paper presented at International Workshop on Inclusive
Education, Nordic Countries, 67 March, 2008, Helsinki.
Kokkala, H., & Savolainen, H. (2002). Koulutusta kaikille [Education for all]. NMI-Bulletin, 12, (4). Niilo
Maki Instituutti, Jyvaskylan yliopisto, pp. 2631.
Kupari, P., & Valijarvi, J. (2005). Osaaminen kestavalla pohjalla: PISA 2003 Suomessa [Sustainable basis
for learning and competencies: PISA 2003 in Finland]. Jyvaskylan yliopisto: Koulutuksen
tutkimuslaitos.
Lindstrom, A. (2001). Tie oppivelvollisuuden saatamiseen [Towards compulsory education]. In
M. T. Kuikka, A. Lindstrom, E. Merimaa, & P. Elo (Eds.), Koko kansan koulu-80 vuotta
oppivelvollisuutta: Suomen Kouluhistoriallinen Seura ry (pp. 15100). Jyvaskyla: Opetushallitus.

123

96

I. Halinen, R. Jarvinen

Maensivu, K. (2004). Kumppanuuteen perustuva yhteistyo koulun toimintatapana [Partnership-based

cooperation as a mode of action in school]. In E. Vitikka & O. Saloranta-Eriksson (Eds.), Uudistuva
perusopetus (pp. 97114). Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Merimaa, E. (2004). Uudistuva perusopetus, esipuhe [Transforming basic education]. In E. Vitikka &
O. Saloranta-Eriksson (Eds.), Uudistuva perusopetus (pp. 56). Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Moberg, S. (2001). Opettajien nakemykset inklusiivisesta opetuksesta [Inclusive education from the
teachers point of view]. In P. Murto, A. Naukkarinen, & T. Saloviita (Eds.), Inkluusion haaste
koululle. Opetus 2000 (pp. 8295). Jyvaskyla: PS-kustannus.
Moberg, S., & Savolainen, H. (2008). Suomalaisten 9- ja 15-vuotiaiden lukutaidon muutos 1960-luvulta
2000-luvulle [Changes in reading skills of 9- to 15-year-old Finnish pupils from the 1960s to the
2000s]. Kasvatus, 1, 3138.
MOE (Ministry of Education). (2004). Report of the committee on improving the conditions and financing
of hospital education. Reports of the Ministry of Education, Finland, no. 8, 2004.
MOE (Ministry of Education). (2005). Report of the committee for school welfare. Reports of the Ministry
of Education, Finland, no. 27, 2005.
MOE (Ministry of Education). (2007). Special education strategy. Reports of the Ministry of Education,
Finland, no. 47, 2007.
MOE (Ministry of Education). (2008). Koulutuksen ja tutkimuksen kehittamissuunnitelma vuosille 2007
2012. [The development plan for education and research 20072012]. Report of the Ministry of
Education, Finland, no. 9, 2008.
Naukkarinen, A. (1998). Kurinalaisuutta ja taakan siirtoa: Koulun oppimisvaikeudet erityiskasvatuksen
tarpeen maarittajana [Discipline and shifting burdens: Learning difficulties in defining special needs
education]. In T. Ladonlahti, A. Naukkarinen, & S. Vehmas (Eds.), Poikkeava vai erityinen?
Erityispedagogiikan monet ulottuvuudet (Vol. 1, pp. 82202). Jyvaskyla: AtenaKustannus.
Naukkarinen, A. (2005). Osallistavaa koulua rakentamassa Tutkimus yleisopetuksen koulun ja erityiskoulun
yhdistymisen prosessista [Building a participatory school: A study on the process of joining special
needs schools to mainstream education]. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
NBE (National Board of Education). (2000). National core curriculum for preschool education. Helsinki:
National Board of Education.
NBE (National Board of Education). (2002). Valtion erityiskoulut palvelevat [How the State Special
Schools Serve]. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
NBE (National Board of Education). (2004). National core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki:
Finnish National Board of Education.
NBE (National Board of Education). (2007). Before- and after-school activities. Helsinki: Finnish National
Board of Education.
Organizations for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Students with disabilities, learning
difficulties and disadvantages: Statistics and indicators for curriculum access and equity. CERI
Governing Board 78 November. Paris: OECD.
Pekkala, L. (2006). Osallistava kasvatus [Inclusive education]. Kasvatus, 4, 323325.
Peltonen, H. (Ed.). (2005). Opiskelun tuki esi-ja perusopetuksessa [Support for learning in preschool and
basic education]. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Pinola, M. (2008). Integraatio ja inkluusio peruskoulussa. Luokanopettajien asennoituminen kaikille
yhteiseen kouluun. [Integration and inclusion in basic education. The attitudes of class teachers
concerning the common school for all]. Kasvatus, 1, 3949.
Rajala, R. (Ed.). (2007). Lapsen parhaaksi: Tukea aamu- ja iltapaivatoimintaan [For the best for the child:
Support for before- and after-school activities]. Helsinki: Opetusministerio, Opetushallitus.
Rinne, R. (2001). Suomalainen yhtenaiskoulu ja ylikansallinen koulutuspolitiikka [The Finnish integrated
school and transnational education policy]. In M. T. Kuikka, A. Lindstrom, E. Merimaa, & P. Elo
(Eds.), Koko kansan koulu-80 vuotta oppivelvollisuutta: Suomen Kouluhistoriallinen Seura ry
(pp. 127145). Jyvaskyla: Opetushallitus.
Saloviita, T. (2006a). Erityisopetus ja inkluusio [Special needs education and inclusion]. Kasvatus, 4,
326342.
Saloviita, T. (2006b). Yhteistoiminnallinen oppiminen ja osallistuva kasvatus [Cooperative learning and
inclusive education]. Opetus 2000. Juva: PS-Kustannus.
Saloviita, T., Murto, P., & Naukkarinen, A. (2001). Johdanto teokseen Inkluusion haaste koululle [Preface to
the book Challenges of inclusion for schools]. In P. Murto, A. Naukkarinen, & T. Saloviita (Eds.),
Inkluusion haaste koululle. Opetus 2000. Jyvaskyla: PS-kustannus.
Sarjala, J. (2001). Ainoakaan lapsi ei jaa huomaamatta [No child left unnoticed]. In M. T. Kuikka, A.
Lindstrom, E. Merimaa, & P. Elo (Eds.), Koko kansan koulu-80 vuotta oppivelvollisuutta: Suomen
Kouluhistoriallinen Seura ry (pp. 1114). Jyvaskyla: Opetushallitus.

123

Towards inclusive education

97

Tilus, P. (Ed.). (2007). Sairaalaopetus tanaan [Hospital education today]. Jyvaskyla: Saireke-hankkeen
raportteja ja kehittamismateriaaleja 1.
Tilus, P. (Ed.). (2008). Sairaalakoulut 2008 [Hospital schools 2008]. Jyvaskyla: Saireke-hankkeen
raportteja 2.
Tuunainen, K., & Ihatsu, M. (1996). Erityisopetuksen organisoinnin kehityslinjat Suomessa [Development
trends in organising special needs education in Finland]. In H. Blom, et al. (Eds.), Erityisopetuksen tila
(pp. 724). Arviointi, Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994). The Salamanca statement and
framework for action on special needs education. World Conference on Special Needs Education:
Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain, 10 June 1994. Available online at: www.unesco.org
/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2008). EFA global monitoring report
2008: Education for All by 2015. Will we make it?. Paris: UNESCO.
Uusikyla, K. (2005). Rakastettu ja vihattu peruskoulumme [Our beloved and hated comprehensive school].
In K. Hamalainen, A. Lindstrom, & J. Puhakka (Eds.), Yhtenaisen peruskoulun menestystarina (pp. 13
17). Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.
Valijarvi, J. (2003). The system and how does it worksome curricular and pedagogical characteristics of
the Finnish comprehensive school. Education Journal, 31(2), 2003. The Chinese University of Hong
Kong, pp. 3155.
Valijarvi, J., et al. (2002). The Finnish success in PISA and some reasons behind it. University of Jyvaskyla,
Institute of Educational Research.
Vayrynen, S. (2001). Miten opitaan elamaan yhdessa? Inkluusion monet kasvot [How to learn to live
together? Many faces of inclusion]. In P. Murto, A. Naukkarinen, & T. Saloviita (Eds.), Inkluusion
haaste koululle (pp. 1229). Opetus 2000. Jyvaskyla: PS-kustannus.
Vehmas, S. (2001). Etiikka erityiskasvatuksen ja vammaistutkimuksen perustana [Ethics as a basis for
research into special needs education and disability]. In M. Jahnukainen (Ed.), Lasten erityishuolto
ja-opetus Suomessa (pp. 364375). Helsinki: Lastensuojelun keskusliitto.
Viittala, K. (2005). Lapsuus ja erityinen tuki paivahoidossa [Childhood and special support in daycare].
In E. Kontu & E. Suhonen (Eds.), Erityispedagogiikka ja varhaislapsuus (pp. 930). Helsinki:
Yliopistopaino Kustannus.

Author Biographies
Irmeli Halinen is Director of the Preschool and Basic Education Development Unit in the Finnish National
Board of Education. She is also a member of the Finnish Education Evaluation Council and the Finnish
National Commission for UNESCO, and a permanent expert member of the Advisory Board of the
Ombudsman for Children in Finland. Since the 1970s she has been actively involved in developing Finnish
basic education and in other national reform projects.
Ritva Jarvinen is Senior Advisor to the Finnish National Board of Education. She has wide experience as a
teacher and school principal. Together with Irmeli Halinen, she is responsible for the Nordic Community of
Practice, set up by the UNESCO International Bureau of Education (IBE).

123